Robert Blalock v. P. Kuntz

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 5:20-cv-2298-GW (MAR) Date: July 27, 2021 Title Present: The Honorable: MARGO A. ROCCONI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ERICA BUSTOS N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: N/A N/A Proceedings: (In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION On October 22, 2020, Robert Blalock (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), constructively filed1 a Civil Rights Complaint (“Complaint”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1 at 12. On January 27, 2021, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend (“ODLA”), granting Plaintiff thirty (30) days to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Dkt. 11 at 8. After receiving notice of Plaintiff’s change of address, the Court extended the deadline to April 2, 2021. Dkts. 13, 15.

On April 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed what appeared to be an “Objection to the Magistrate Judge[’]s Pretrial Order.” Dkt. 17. In response, the Court noted that the authority that Plaintiff cited was inapplicable because the District Judge, not the Magistrate Judge, had issued the Order Plaintiff objected to. Dkt. 18. The Court then ordered Plaintiff to respond to the Order, clarifying whether Plaintiff wanted to extend time to file an FAC. Id. Plaintiff responded to the Order on May 24, 2021, by moving for an extension of ninety (90) days. Dkt. 19. The Court granted his motion but only for 30 days, extending the deadline to June 28, 2021. Dkt. 20.

To date, Plaintiff has not filed a First Amended Complaint, nor requested an additional extension of time.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing within fourteen (14) days of this Order, by August 10, 2021, why this action should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

The Court will consider any of the following three (3) options to be an appropriate response to this OSC: (1) Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint that addresses the deficiencies identified in the Court’s January 27, 2021 ODLA; Under the “mailbox rule”, when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to the court, the court deems the pleading constructively “filed” on the date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010).

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 5:20-cv-2298-GW (MAR) Date: July 27, 2021 Title (2) Plaintiff shall provide the Court with an explanation as to why he has failed to file a First Amended Complaint; or (3) Plaintiff may request a voluntarily dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The Clerk is directed to attach a Notice of Dismissal form for Plaintiff’s convenience.

Failure to respond to the Court’s Order may result in the dismissal of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

: Initials of Preparer eb UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NUMBER Plaintiff(s), v. NOTICE OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a) or (c) Defendant(s).

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: (Check one) G This action is dismissed by the Plaintiff(s) in its entirety.

G The Counterclaim brought by Claimant(s) is dismissed by Claimant(s) in its entirety.

G The Cross-Claim brought by Claimants(s) is dismissed by the Claimant(s) in its entirety.

G The Third-party Claim brought by Claimant(s) is dismissed by the Claimant(s) in its entirety.

G ONLY Defendant(s) is/are dismissed from (check one)G Complaint, G Counterclaim, G Cross-claim, G Third-Party Claim brought by .

The dismissal is made pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 41(a) or (c).

Date Signature of Attorney/Party NOTE: F.R.Civ.P. 41(a): This notice may be filed at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment, whichever first occurs.

F.R.Civ.P. 41(c): Counterclaims, cross-claims & third-party claims may be dismissed before service of a responsive